2026 Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team

[Matt2725]

Well if the FIA are looking at front wings. They should look at another one too.

[AR3-GP]

Well if the FIA are looking at front wings. They should look at another one too.

What, in your own words, is the issue here? Can you be more specific? All wings are moving when they transition from the unloaded straight mode to the loaded corner mode.

[Matt2725]

Well if the FIA are looking at front wings. They should look at another one too.

What, in your own words, is the issue here? Can you be more specific? All wings are moving when they transition from the unloaded straight mode to the loaded corner mode.

https://i.postimg.cc/1zcdC7t6/Merc-Wing-Endplate.gif

My own words lol stop looking for an argument you're not going to get one.

Ultimately it's a flexible wing issue as far as I can tell. So as long as every team is getting the same scrutiny, then I think it's fair.

All I have seen this season otherwise is the Italian media and online "tifosi" claiming everything Merc are doing is cheating in some fashion. It's getting immensely boring and it smacks of desperation from a base, that has realised their prized team has been out engineered yet again for the 18th season in a row.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

From sprintQ highlights there is a shot of antonelli approaching the hairpin with timing ticking. And with pausing you can clearly see that front wing closes in over 400 ms…

That's some impressive pausing.....

There is nothing impressive really.. the sector time is shown live. Once you see rear wing closing (because front wing starts also at the same time) and pause when front wing is fully closed it is more than 0.4 sec

My reactions aren't fast enough to hit pause that quickly!!

[zibby43]

No investigation into Merc’s front wing.

0-3 for the Italian media at this point.

https://x.com/kymillman/status/20370037 ... w2eCbwUjFA

I’ll caveat that we still are probably lacking a reliable, definitive source.

Edit:

A more definitive source is now available: https://x.com/SMitchellF1/status/203704 ... 19433?s=20

[Lasssept]

[the EDGE]

I thought in the event of a failure, the front (and rear) wing must return automatically to corner mode???

How on earth can Merc's wing be legal if it requires hydraulic pressure to do so???

[Emag]

I thought in the event of a failure, the front (and rear) wing must return automatically to corner mode???

How on earth can Merc's wing be legal if it requires hydraulic pressure to do so???

I am assuming it requires hydraulic pressure to go into STL position. The glitch in China probably cause it to not relieve all of the pressure immediately, so the wing went up into the "natural" position slowly.

When I saw it I also thought it was a malfunction, but apparently there's been a lot of talk about a potential gray area here. I don't see how it could be beneficial to be honest. Having less frontend downforce under braking is just bad overall for the balance. Didn't they have some issues with understeer in the practice session? I also don't think there's any meaningful "extra" rear loading for battery generation either. Weight is shifted forwards under braking and the rear will naturally "lose" some load, even without a front wing.

Also all of these theories are based on one video. Why isn't it visible in other sessions and in Australia if it was an actual feature? We didn't notice it in Bahrain either. This would have been a bigger thing if it was intentional. Let's see if it exhibits the same behavior in Suzuka, but I am fairly confident this is just a malfunction.

[Farnborough]

I thought in the event of a failure, the front (and rear) wing must return automatically to corner mode???

How on earth can Merc's wing be legal if it requires hydraulic pressure to do so???

I am assuming it requires hydraulic pressure to go into STL position. The glitch in China probably cause it to not relieve all of the pressure immediately, so the wing went up into the "natural" position slowly.

When I saw it I also thought it was a malfunction, but apparently there's been a lot of talk about a potential gray area here. I don't see how it could be beneficial to be honest. Having less frontend downforce under braking is just bad overall for the balance. Didn't they have some issues with understeer in the practice session? I also don't think there's any meaningful "extra" rear loading for battery generation either. Weight is shifted forwards under braking and the rear will naturally "lose" some load, even without a front wing.

Also all of these theories are based on one video. Why isn't it visible in other sessions and in Australia if it was an actual feature? We didn't notice it in Bahrain either. This would have been a bigger thing if it was intentional. Let's see if it exhibits the same behavior in Suzuka, but I am fairly confident this is just a malfunction.

The understanding is that its the opposite from report, if that's accurate.

Meaning that, failure to "pull" the wing back up into it's maximum AoA position (if there's a system problem) would likely be straight to a pitstop for rectification, or intervention by race control.

[AR3-GP]

No investigation into Merc’s front wing.

0-3 for the Italian media at this point.

https://x.com/kymillman/status/20370037 ... w2eCbwUjFA

I’ll caveat that we still are probably lacking a reliable, definitive source.

Edit:

A more definitive source is now available: https://x.com/SMitchellF1/status/203704 ... 19433?s=20

It doesn't matter if it was a problem, mistake, or rules exploitation. It was illegal just like the plank wear in COTA 2023 and the Min weight in Spa 2024. "oops" is not a valid excuse.

[F1NAC]

No investigation into Merc’s front wing.

0-3 for the Italian media at this point.

https://x.com/kymillman/status/20370037 ... w2eCbwUjFA

I’ll caveat that we still are probably lacking a reliable, definitive source.

Edit:

A more definitive source is now available: https://x.com/SMitchellF1/status/203704 ... 19433?s=20

It doesn't matter if it was a problem, mistake, or rules exploitation. It was illegal just like the plank wear in COTA 2023 and the Min weight in Spa 2024. "oops" is not a valid excuse.

So if I got this right… merc got lucky cause nobody noticed and FIA doesn’t check opening times of wings during scrutineering. Otherwise it would be DQ?

Because that fw took way more than 400 ms

[Emag]

No investigation into Merc’s front wing.

0-3 for the Italian media at this point.

https://x.com/kymillman/status/20370037 ... w2eCbwUjFA

I’ll caveat that we still are probably lacking a reliable, definitive source.

Edit:

A more definitive source is now available: https://x.com/SMitchellF1/status/203704 ... 19433?s=20

It doesn't matter if it was a problem, mistake, or rules exploitation. It was illegal just like the plank wear in COTA 2023 and the Min weight in Spa 2024. "oops" is not a valid excuse.

Is it conclusive that it exceeds the 400ms limit?
Also, since I haven't read the TR word for word, does it state that the wing has to return completely to the "default" position? Or is it some ambiguous wording like "the wings must retract from the straight line mode position within 400ms"?

Because that second one could be argued.

[AR3-GP]

Is it conclusive that it exceeds the 400ms limit?
Also, since I haven't read the TR word for word, does it state that the wing has to return completely to the "default" position? Or is it some ambiguous wording like "the wings must retract from the straight line mode position within 400ms"?

Because that second one could be argued.

It's cut and dry no ambiguity.

C3.10.10: Any adjustment of Front Wing Profiles controlled by the FIA Standard ECU must:
o. have a maximum transition time between the two fixed positions that does not exceed 400ms.

The fixed positions are defined:

n. when commanded, switch to one of two fixed positions defined as follows:
i. a “Corner Mode” position...
ii. a “Straight-Line Mode” position...

and limited to two positions only:

t. ... FW Primary Flap and FW Secondary Flap can only
have the two positions defined in (n)

It's been timed in this twitter thread. It was going on all race in Australia too, and Mercedes claim they only "discovered the issue in China qualifying". I was also born yesterday.

[Emag]

Is it conclusive that it exceeds the 400ms limit?
Also, since I haven't read the TR word for word, does it state that the wing has to return completely to the "default" position? Or is it some ambiguous wording like "the wings must retract from the straight line mode position within 400ms"?

Because that second one could be argued.

It's cut and dry no ambiguity.

C3.10.10: Any adjustment of Front Wing Profiles controlled by the FIA Standard ECU must:
o. have a maximum transition time between the two fixed positions that does not exceed 400ms.

The fixed positions are defined:

n. when commanded, switch to one of two fixed positions defined as follows:
i. a “Corner Mode” position...
ii. a “Straight-Line Mode” position...

and limited to two positions only:

t. ... FW Primary Flap and FW Secondary Flap can only
have the two positions defined in (n)

It's been timed in this twitter thread. It was going on all race in Australia too, and Mercedes claim they only "discovered the issue in China qualifying". I was also born yesterday.

Well then I suppose that's a pretty clear breach. It's weird that other teams haven't heavily protested that because it seems like they could have asked for a DQ. I still think it's a malfunction though, especially since it happens "randomly". But you're right, a malfunction does not make it okay with the rules.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

I thought in the event of a failure, the front (and rear) wing must return automatically to corner mode???

How on earth can Merc's wing be legal if it requires hydraulic pressure to do so???

Presumably, if we do take it as a fault, not intentional, then the system hasn't failed but is running slow. If it failed completely, then it would fail to corner mode much quicker.